Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 44Ronin wrote:

I make fun of people who treat an ancient document as a quasi religious document.

Stop making fun of the Constitution. Heathen

 Jihadin wrote:
One of the many rules in the Fight Club...of Dakka

Don't make fun of the US Constitution.
Being the US Constitution had a hand in saving Aussie's from Japan in the 40's

You'd never guess what has become a reasonably common theory over here. "The Japanese would have totally stopped in PNG if they had beaten the choccos, they totally would have guys"

 motyak wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
One of the many rules in the Fight Club...of Dakka

Don't make fun of the US Constitution.
Being the US Constitution had a hand in saving Aussie's from Japan in the 40's

You'd never guess what has become a reasonably common theory over here. "The Japanese would have totally stopped in PNG if they had beaten the choccos, they totally would have guys"

Japan did not even have the logistics to invade Australia, and the Imperial Army was against any potential invasion.

The "Australia saving" idea is a common misconception

 easysauce wrote:
and again, frazz has an excellent point,

if the anti gun side is in the right, why do they constantly

either out right lie about things, or at the very best, spew their ignorance like its fact regarding calling things that are NOT assault rifles, assault rifles, and purposely using the incorrect terminolgy for many things, simply because its the more scary word to use.

Far too often, outright lies are presented as fact, and policies around those lies are attempted to be pushed through... just like the "glocks can go through scanners" BS, and numerous other examples.

Their argument should stand on its own if its a good one, that it doesnt, and they have to resort to demonizing gun owners and particular "looks scary" guns just shows there is no leg to stand on.

For me this is the crux of it

 cincydooley wrote:
Did you conveniently forget the part of my quote where I said if it was free I'd be fine with it?

So state actions are free?

 cincydooley wrote:
.

What do you think about requiring a safety course for firearm ownership ownership. We already have background checks. Most applicable states have course requirements for conceal-carry. And I had to take a hunter education course before I could apply for and receive a hunting license...

Is the state paying for it? If so, I'd be fine with it. Requiring classes for CCW is different because its not placing additional qualifications on owning the firearm, but simply how you can carry it. In my opinion, forcing someone to pay for a class to own a gun is no different than forcing someone to own a state issued ID to vote.

I know. It was in the comment you quoted and responded to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Did you conveniently forget the part of my quote where I said if it was free I'd be fine with it?

So state actions are free?

Look at you, you crafty editing devil you.

You just saw it, right there, dincha?

If the state wants to require the classes free of charge I'd be fine with it. Despite the fact that, even though state IDs are free if charge, people still don't want to require them to vote.

If they want to require it for ownership and force people to pay for it, it would inappropriate and unconstitutional.

Australian Navy holding back the IJN eh

 Jihadin wrote:
Australian Navy holding back the IJN eh

Ha, choccos on the trail holding back the ground forces too

Okay At first I thinking pygmies in New Guinea or something. Aborigine's? Being Chocco is short for "Chocolate Soldier". Enlighten me Mot

They were reservists, and you are right on what chocco means, chocolate soldier. I always heard it was because the regular army thought they'd melt in battle, but theres variations on that.

But I'm going really OT here, sorry

Here's what I found:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/choco

Then to get a bit deeper into it:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chocolate_soldier

As far as Japan invading Australia goes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_Australia_during_World_War_II

Between the Australians and allies that would have met them, they didn't want to try, although I imagine it was tense times because no one knew for sure.

 44Ronin wrote:


Japan did not even have the logistics to invade Australia, and the Imperial Army was against any potential invasion.

Was this before, or after 'Murica stepped in and saved y'all?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Was this before, or after 'Murica stepped in and saved y'all?

Ever. Japan didn't have the capacity to launch an attack that far successfully. Most of the islands they took they knew they couldn't hold. They just hoped they'd get to keep some of the nicer ones when we got tired of fighting. Turned out we were a lot more willing to fight them than they anticipated. They weren't going to invade Australia. it would escalate their conflict with Great Britain, the opposite of what they wanted. They couldn't win the battle anyway and they knew it so they never intended to try.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Was this before, or after 'Murica stepped in and saved y'all?

Ever. Japan didn't have the capacity to launch an attack that far successfully. Most of the islands they took they knew they couldn't hold. They just hoped they'd get to keep some of the nicer ones when we got tired of fighting. Turned out we were a lot more willing to fight them than they anticipated. They weren't going to invade Australia. it would escalate their conflict with Great Britain, the opposite of what they wanted. They couldn't win the battle anyway and they knew it so they never intended to try.

Guess I shoulda put this face: up to show that I wasn't serious


And I woulda thought that putting 'Murica in the comment would be a decent clue as well

I never know with Dakka anymore

 cincydooley wrote:

If they want to require it for ownership and force people to pay for it, it would inappropriate and unconstitutional.

Honestly, if we're discussing changing how the 2nd amendment works (or at least how it's interpreted), you can't shoot an idea down by saying it's unconstitutional.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Was this before, or after 'Murica stepped in and saved y'all?

Ever. Japan didn't have the capacity to launch an attack that far successfully. Most of the islands they took they knew they couldn't hold. They just hoped they'd get to keep some of the nicer ones when we got tired of fighting. Turned out we were a lot more willing to fight them than they anticipated. They weren't going to invade Australia. it would escalate their conflict with Great Britain, the opposite of what they wanted. They couldn't win the battle anyway and they knew it so they never intended to try.

Maybe short term.

Long term, they likely would have kept the pattern of aggression.

And they would still have conducted air raids and generally made life miserable.

And if they hadn't pissed off America they would probably have been much bolder. America wasn't interested in fighting yet and things weren't looking like anyone wanted to get involved in the war on a proactive level. Pearl Harbor is what got America in gear. Japan didn't just poke the bear, they came up behind it and touched it with a cattle prod(against the advice of some of their generals)


Frankly, Great Britain was in no condition to fight both Japan and Germany. Japan would have more or less had free reign over Asia if they hadn't gone to war with the US.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Long term, they likely would have kept the pattern of aggression.

Yeah, but at that point you're talking fantasy, not history. WWII didn't go that way, and never came close to going that way, so talking about what aggressive plans may have followed WWII for Imperial Japan is kind of relegated to the realm of implausibility.

And if they hadn't pissed off America they would probably have been much bolder.

Fighting us was them being bolder. America wasn't as opposed to war with Japan as is sometimes portrayed. Opposed to war with Germany at the time yes, but not with Japan. We'd had escalating tensions with them going on 20 years. The South East Pacific was as much a powder keg in the 1930's as the Balklands in the 1910's. Japan wanted to move south and seize oil rich islands from the Dutch, British, and French. To do so would force them to bypass the Philipinnes which was logistically impossible. They needed those islands. There wasn't any way around that. We knew it. They knew it. Both sides knew the war was coming (Billy Mitchell called it first ).

There was no way for Japan to get what they wanted without fighting us. We were already on edge with them over China. If they started aggressive expansion southward even by risking long logistic lines by not taking the Philippines, we'd have gotten involved, and they knew we would as much as we did. They chose to strike first rather than pretend otherwise, but like I said. They horribly underestimated our ability and willingness to fight them (It's kind of a trait of all the Axis powers really ).

EDIT: Hell just look at how hard they tried to calm us down over numerous blunders in China, like when they fired on a US ship and when one of their soldier's slapped a US ambassador during Nanking. We demanded apologies and got them, they paid us for damages to our ship, even disciplines the soldier involved in the Allison Incident. They were really big on trying to keep us out of their business in Asia. They really didn't want to fight us, but they ran out of options. If that's not bold I'm not sure what is.

And that's all a separate issue from them invading Australia. Britain may have been heavily involved in Europe, but they maintained a fighting force in Asia. They chose to be on a more defensive posture so long as Japan was content to focus mostly on us, but an attack on Australia would have forced Britain's hand. They'd have taken a more aggressive stance, one that would be disastrous for a Japan stress already on all fronts between the US, and China, as well as the fear of a Russian invasion. They did not want to risk escalation with Britain.

EDIT: And for those wanted a great read; Fighting Ships of the Rising Sun, a definitive text on the Japanese Imperial Navy and Japanese grand strategy. Finding a copy of your own would be hard (I paid $120 for mine) but many copies can be found in libraries.

 LordofHats wrote:


Fighting us was them being bolder. America wasn't as opposed to war with Japan as is sometimes portrayed. Opposed to war with Germany at the time yes, but not with Japan. We'd had escalating tensions with them going on 20 years. The South East Pacific was as much a powder keg in the 1930's as the Balklands in the 1910's. Japan wanted to move south and seize oil rich islands from the Dutch, British, and French. To do so would force them to bypass the Philipinnes which was logistically impossible. They needed those islands. There wasn't any way around that. We knew it. They knew it. Both sides knew the war was coming (Billy Mitchell called it first ).

I recall reading certain "history" books where they took the position that FDR was publicly decrying, and suggesting that we didn't want to fight anyone in WW2, but in "private" diplomatic meetings, he, and the Ambassadors to Japan were definitely pushing Japan's buttons trying to push them to "fire the opening salvo"... It wasn't anything overt like them standing with their arms wide saying "come at me bro", it was more subtle, in their actions like punctuality for meetings, and other small actions that offended Japanese traditions and whatnot.

Ah yes. The good old Roosevelt made Pearly Harbor happen history I hear it was going to be the plot of National Treasure 3; We Totally Never Cared About History Give Nick Cage More Money

 LordofHats wrote:
Ah yes. The good old Roosevelt made Pearly Harbor happen history I hear it was going to be the plot of National Treasure 3; We Totally Never Cared About History Give Nick Cage More Money

Yeah... it's just something I recall reading... and since I cant remember the book, or the author should tell you something about whether I think it was actually legit

To further explain;

Gaffes like that are common in diplomacy. Especially in the racist times that were the most of the 20th century. The idea that they were part of some scheme by Roosevelt to entice Japan to strike first is really silly. Many in his administration (himself included) did believe war with Japan was inevitable come the late 30's. They didn't know when but they knew it was coming. A lot of the 'evidence' that they were trying to instigate the conflict was really attempts to try and dissuade Japan from fighting using the typical international politics of the time; carry a bigger stick and make sure to show it off (International politics are about 50% brain dead stupidity).

 cincydooley wrote:

If the state wants to require the classes free of charge I'd be fine with it. Despite the fact that, even though state IDs are free if charge, people still don't want to require them to vote.

If they want to require it for ownership and force people to pay for it, it would inappropriate and unconstitutional.

State IDs are not universally free, or universally accepted, but otherwise we're on the same page.

Small Arms technology took off.

No more bolt action rifles. Hello M1 Garand family

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Honestly, if we're discussing changing how the 2nd amendment works (or at least how it's interpreted), you can't shoot an idea down by saying it's unconstitutional.

A good point.

 LordofHats wrote:
(International politics are about 50% brain dead stupidity).

Double points for international politics that are considered domestically.

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
One of the many rules in the Fight Club...of Dakka
Don't make fun of the US Constitution.

I don't make fun of the US Constitution.

I make fun of people who treat an ancient document as a quasi religious document.

Some of us are old enough that its not that ancient.